gender – United Yam

State-level religious freedom protections grow in recent years #Catholic

Thirty states have adopted some version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) first signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1993. / Credit: Leigh Prather/Shutterstock

Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Oct 21, 2025 / 17:56 pm (CNA).
Protections for religious freedom in the U.S. have grown in recent years with multiple states adopting laws to strengthen the constitutional right to freely exercise one’s religion.As of 2025, 30 states have adopted a version of the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) or similar legislative protection for religious freedom. The most recent states to adopt those protections for state-level laws were Georgia and Wyoming in 2025 and Iowa, Utah, and Nebraska in 2024. West Virginia and North Dakota adopted them in 2023 and South Dakota and Montana did the same in 2021.RFRA was first adopted in 1993, when then-President Bill Clinton signed it into law to expand religious freedom protections. Under the law, the federal government cannot “substantially burden” the free exercise of religion unless there is a “compelling government interest” and it is carried out in the “least restrictive” means possible.Congress passed the law in response to the 1990 Supreme Court decision in Employment Division v. Smith, which asserted that the First Amendment was not violated as long as a law was “neutral and generally applicable.” The law was intended to provide a stronger safeguard for the free exercise of religion than what was provided by the highest court. Bipartisan consensus gone, but opposition weakeningWhen RFRA was adopted at the federal level in the 1990s, the protections had overwhelming bipartisan support. In the 2010s, that bipartisan consensus waned as most Democrats voiced opposition to the protections.Tim Schultz, the president of the 1st Amendment Partnership, told CNA that in 2013, two states adopted RFRA with nearly unanimous support from Republicans and about two-thirds support from Democrats. However, the law became more divisive after the 2014 Supreme Court ruling in favor of exempting Hobby Lobby from a mandate to provide abortifacient drugs based on RFRA.“That [bipartisan support] seems like a million years ago,” Schultz said. “Now I would say Republican support is about the same as it was then. Democratic support is under 5%.”Although Schultz did not express optimism that bipartisan support could return any time soon, he credited some cultural shifts for the strong success in Republican-leaning states over the past four years.From 2014 through 2020, he said business groups and LGBT groups “were working together very strongly … in opposition to religious freedom bills” because they saw them as threats to certain anti-discrimination laws related to workplace policies from religious employers.However, post-2020, he said, “the politics of RFRA are far more favorable,” and he noted there has been “far less opposition from business groups.”One reason for this change, according to Schultz, was the widely-published story of NCAA championship swimmer Lia Thomas, a biologically male swimmer who identified as a transgender woman and competed in women’s sports. This led polling to “change on every issue related to LGBT,” he noted.Another reason, he argued, was the response to transgender-related policies by Target and the Bud Light ads, which led to “consumer anger at both of them.” He noted the money lost by the corporations “made business groups say ‘we are not going to have the same posture.’”In spite of the partisanship that fuels the current debate, Schultz noted RFRA has been used to defend religious freedom on a wide range of issues, some of which have pleased conservatives and others that have pleased progressives.Although RFRA has been used to defend religious freedom on issues related to contraception, abortion, gender, and sexuality, it has also been used to defend religious organizations that provide services for migrants. “[RFRA is] not politically predictable,” Schultz said.

unitedyam October 21, 2025

Thirty states have adopted some version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) first signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1993. / Credit: Leigh Prather/Shutterstock

Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Oct 21, 2025 / 17:56 pm (CNA).

Protections for religious freedom in the U.S. have grown in recent years with multiple states adopting laws to strengthen the constitutional right to freely exercise one’s religion.

As of 2025, 30 states have adopted a version of the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) or similar legislative protection for religious freedom.

The most recent states to adopt those protections for state-level laws were Georgia and Wyoming in 2025 and Iowa, Utah, and Nebraska in 2024. West Virginia and North Dakota adopted them in 2023 and South Dakota and Montana did the same in 2021.

RFRA was first adopted in 1993, when then-President Bill Clinton signed it into law to expand religious freedom protections. Under the law, the federal government cannot “substantially burden” the free exercise of religion unless there is a “compelling government interest” and it is carried out in the “least restrictive” means possible.

Congress passed the law in response to the 1990 Supreme Court decision in Employment Division v. Smith, which asserted that the First Amendment was not violated as long as a law was “neutral and generally applicable.” The law was intended to provide a stronger safeguard for the free exercise of religion than what was provided by the highest court.

Bipartisan consensus gone, but opposition weakening

When RFRA was adopted at the federal level in the 1990s, the protections had overwhelming bipartisan support. In the 2010s, that bipartisan consensus waned as most Democrats voiced opposition to the protections.

Tim Schultz, the president of the 1st Amendment Partnership, told CNA that in 2013, two states adopted RFRA with nearly unanimous support from Republicans and about two-thirds support from Democrats. However, the law became more divisive after the 2014 Supreme Court ruling in favor of exempting Hobby Lobby from a mandate to provide abortifacient drugs based on RFRA.

“That [bipartisan support] seems like a million years ago,” Schultz said. “Now I would say Republican support is about the same as it was then. Democratic support is under 5%.”

Although Schultz did not express optimism that bipartisan support could return any time soon, he credited some cultural shifts for the strong success in Republican-leaning states over the past four years.

From 2014 through 2020, he said business groups and LGBT groups “were working together very strongly … in opposition to religious freedom bills” because they saw them as threats to certain anti-discrimination laws related to workplace policies from religious employers.

However, post-2020, he said, “the politics of RFRA are far more favorable,” and he noted there has been “far less opposition from business groups.”

One reason for this change, according to Schultz, was the widely-published story of NCAA championship swimmer Lia Thomas, a biologically male swimmer who identified as a transgender woman and competed in women’s sports. This led polling to “change on every issue related to LGBT,” he noted.

Another reason, he argued, was the response to transgender-related policies by Target and the Bud Light ads, which led to “consumer anger at both of them.” He noted the money lost by the corporations “made business groups say ‘we are not going to have the same posture.’”

In spite of the partisanship that fuels the current debate, Schultz noted RFRA has been used to defend religious freedom on a wide range of issues, some of which have pleased conservatives and others that have pleased progressives.

Although RFRA has been used to defend religious freedom on issues related to contraception, abortion, gender, and sexuality, it has also been used to defend religious organizations that provide services for migrants.

“[RFRA is] not politically predictable,” Schultz said.

High Court weighs free speech in Colorado’s law banning counseling on gender identity

unitedyam October 8, 2025

null / Credit: Wolfgang Schaller|Shutterstock

Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Oct 8, 2025 / 10:00 am (CNA).

The U.S. Supreme Court during oral arguments on Oct. 7 scrutinized Colorado’s law banning counseling on gender identity with some justices voicing concern about possible viewpoint discrimination and free speech restrictions embedded in the statute.

Colorado Solicitor General Shannon Stevenson defended the law, which prohibits licensed psychologists and therapists from engaging in any efforts that it considers “conversion therapy” when treating minors. It does not apply to parents, members of the clergy, or others.

Nearly half of U.S. states have a similar ban. The Supreme Court ruling on this matter could set nationwide precedent on the legality of such laws.

The Colorado law defines “conversion therapy” as treatments designed to change a person’s “sexual orientation or gender identity,” including changes to “behaviors or gender expressions or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attraction or feelings toward individuals of the same sex” even if the minor and his or her family has requested that care.

Under the law, permitted therapy includes “acceptance, support, and understanding” of a minor’s self-asserted transgender identity or same-sex attraction.

The law is being challenged by Kaley Chiles, a Christian counselor who provides faith-based counseling to clients with gender dysphoria and same-sex attraction.

Free speech and viewpoint discrimination

Stevenson argued that Colorado’s law is not a speech restriction but instead a regulation on a specific type of “treatment,” saying that regulations cannot cease to apply “just because they are using words.”

“That treatment does not work and carries great risk of harm,” Stevenson said, referring to the practices the state considers to be “conversion therapy.”

She argued that health care has been “heavily regulated since the beginning of our country” and compared “conversion therapy” to doctors providing improper advice on how to treat a condition. She claimed this therapy falsely asserts “you can change this innate thing about yourself.”

“The client and the patient [are] expecting accurate information,” Stevenson said.

Justice Samuel Alito told Stevenson the law sounds like “blatant viewpoint discrimination,” noting that a minor can receive talk therapy welcoming homosexual inclinations but cannot access therapy to reduce those urges. He said it is a restriction “based on the viewpoint expressed.”

Alito said the state’s position is “a minor should not be able to obtain talk therapy to overcome same-sex attraction [even] if that’s what he wants.”

Stevenson argued Colorado is not engaged in viewpoint discrimination and said: “Counseling is an evidence-based practice.” She said it would be wrong to suggest lawmakers “reach[ed] this conclusion based on anything other than protection of minors.”

“There is no other motive going on to suppress viewpoint or expression,” Stevenson said.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett and Justice Neil Gorsuch asked questions about how to handle issues where medical disagreement exists.

Gorsuch noted, for example, that homosexuality was historically viewed as a mental disorder and asked Stevenson whether it would have been legal for states to ban therapy that affirmed a person’s homosexuality at that time. Stevenson argued that at that time, it would have been legal.

Banning ‘voluntary conversations’

Alliance Defending Freedom Chief Counsel Jim Campbell argued on behalf of Chiles and her counseling services, telling the justices his client offers “voluntary speech between a licensed professional and a minor,” and the law bans “voluntary conversations.”

Campbell noted that if one of her minor clients says, “I would like help realigning my identity with my sex,” then the law requires that Chiles “has to deny them.”

“Kids and families that want this kind of help … are being left without any kind of support,” he added, warning that Chiles, her clients, and potential clients are suffering irreparable harm if access to this treatment continues to be denied.

Campbell argued that “many people have experienced life-changing benefits from this kind of counseling,” many of whom are seeking to “align their life with their religion” and improve their “relationship with God.”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor contested whether the issue was about free speech, noting Colorado pointed to studies that such therapy efforts “harm the child … emotionally and physically.”

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson similarly objected to the claim, questioning whether a counselor acting in her professional capacity “is really expressing … a message for a First Amendment purposes.” She said treatment is different than writing an article about conversion therapy or giving a speech about it.

Campbell disagreed, arguing: “This involves a conversation,” and “a one-on-one conversation is a form of speech.” He said Chiles is “discussing concepts of identity and behaviors and attraction” and simply helping her clients “achieve their goals.”

Christian photographer wins lawsuit against Louisville over same-sex discrimination rule

unitedyam October 3, 2025

Photographer holding camera against newlywed couple. / Credit: Vectorfusionart/Shutterstock

Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Oct 3, 2025 / 09:30 am (CNA).

A federal court awarded nominal damages to a Christian photographer after the city government of Louisville, Kentucky, sought to enforce an anti-discrimination ordinance that could have forced her to provide photography services for same-sex civil weddings.

Judge Benjamin Beaton found that Louisville’s Fairness Ordinance contained “two provisions” that limited the expression of Christian wedding photographer Chelsey Nelson, who sought $1 in damages. The court awarded Nelson the requested damages.

According to the ruling, the ordinance prohibited “the denial of goods and services to members of protected classes,” which includes people with same-sex attraction.

The publication provision of the ordinance also prevented her “from writing and publishing any indication or explanation that she wouldn’t photograph same-sex weddings, or that otherwise causes someone to feel unwelcome or undesirable based on his or her sexual orientation or gender identity.”

Both provisions, Beaton ruled, “limit Nelson’s freedom to express her beliefs about marriage.”

The court stated Nelson “suffered a First Amendment injury” because she decided to limit the promotion of her business, ignore opportunities posted online, refrain from advertising to grow her business, and censored herself, which was done to avoid prosecution.

“The government can’t force Americans to say things they don’t believe, and state officials have paid and will continue to pay a price when they violate this foundational freedom,” Nelson said in a statement through her attorneys at Alliance Defending Freedom following the ruling.

“The freedom to speak without fear of censorship is a God-given constitutionally guaranteed right,” she added.

In his ruling, Beaton noted the Supreme Court set nationwide precedent when it ruled on 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis. In that decision, the court ruled a Colorado law violated a web designer’s First Amendment rights because it would have forced him to design websites for same-sex civil weddings in spite of his religious beliefs.

Beaton wrote that in spite of the Supreme Court precedent, “Louisville apparently still ‘actively enforces’ the ordinance … [and] still won’t concede that the First Amendment protects Nelson from compelled expression.”

His ruling noted that the mayor publicly stated that he would keep enforcing the ordinance, including against Nelson, after the 303 Creative decision.

Although the city’s lawyers argued in court that the city did not intend to enforce the law against Nelson, Beaton wrote: “Nothing in Louisville’s informal disavowal would prevent the city from making good on that promise [to enforce the rule against Nelson] tomorrow.”

“Anyone who’s tussled with the city’s lawyers this long and who continues to do business in and around Louisville might reasonably look askance at the city’s assurances that enforcement is unlikely,” Beaton wrote in his ruling.

Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Bryan Neihart said in a statement that “free speech is for everyone” and the precedent set in 303 Creative ensures that Americans “have the freedom to express and create messages that align with their beliefs without fear of government punishment.”

“For over five years, Louisville officials said they could force Chelsey to promote views about marriage that violated her religious beliefs,” he said.

“But the First Amendment leaves decisions about what to say with the people, not the government. The district court’s decision rests on this bedrock First Amendment principle and builds on the victory in 303 Creative.”

Girl Scouts, Cincinnati Archdiocese announce ‘renewed’ partnership after LGBT dispute

unitedyam October 2, 2025

null / Credit: maximino/Shutterstock

CNA Staff, Oct 2, 2025 / 09:41 am (CNA).

After cutting ties with the Girl Scouts over the group’s endorsement of gender ideology, the Archdiocese of Cincinnati said this week that it has struck up a renewed partnership with the more-than-century-old youth organization.

Last year, the archdiocese ended a 110-year relationship with Girl Scouts of the USA due to the group promoting gender ideology contrary to Catholic teaching.

The decision was spearheaded by then-Archbishop Dennis Schnurr, who now serves as archbishop emeritus. At the time, Schnurr endorsed a faith-based scouting group, American Heritage Girls, as an alternative.

Newly-instated Archbishop Robert Casey has since made an agreement with the local Girl Scouts of Western Ohio to maintain Church moral teaching while operating in Catholic parishes.

Girl Scouts groups are “welcome” on Catholic campuses, so long as they pledge not to promote anything counter to the Church’s teaching on faith and morals, according to an archdiocesan press release.

Casey said he is “proud” that the archdiocese and the Girl Scouts “focused on our shared desire for the flourishing of young women in virtue and faith, rather than being solely focused on our differences.”

“Girl Scouts is a secular organization, and as such, they do not share all of our views,” he said in a Sept. 30 statement. “As the Catholic Church we are called to uphold the Gospel and teach young people the truth of the Catholic faith.”

“Despite these differences, we have reached a mutual understanding that allows us to fulfill our mission as Church in the faithful formation of young girls while also accessing all that is best about Girl Scouting,” he continued.

Aimée Sproles, president and CEO of Girl Scouts of Western Ohio, said that organization hopes to encourage girls in their faith journey.

“At Girl Scouts, we believe that a part of girls’ healthy development is encouraging girls in their spiritual journey, through partnerships with their individual faith communities,” Sproles said in a statement.

“Girl Scouts of Western Ohio and the Archdiocese of Cincinnati have helped generations of girls to grow in their faith and develop the critical thinking and decision-making skills they need in order to act on the values of their faith in our complex world,” she said.

“This renewed partnership allows our Catholic Girl Scouts to have the support of their family and the Catholic community as they grow in courage, confidence, and character,” she added.

The agreement comes after “continued dialogue,” archdiocesan spokeswoman Jennifer Schack told CNA.

“While this announcement highlights the renewed partnership, there has been ongoing dialogue, given the two agencies share a common interest to strengthen and support girls in our communities,” Schack said.

The agreement specifies that the Girl Scouts cannot promote anything that goes against Catholic faith and moral teachings, according to documents shared with CNA.

Whether the renewal of the Girl Scouts will affect the archdiocese’s partnership with American Heritage Girls is unclear.

When asked about the effect of the partnership renewal, American Heritage Girls told CNA that it looks forward to “deepening its relationship” with the archdiocese.

The interdenominational group has programs and activities designed for its Catholic scouting groups that promote the Catholic faith, including troop-led Stations of the Cross and Eucharistic Revival patches.

“Catholic families in Cincinnati and beyond have embraced AHG as a trusted youth ministry option,” the organization stated. “AHG looks forward to deepening its relationship with the Archdiocese of Cincinnati as more Catholic families and parishes build communities where virtue and faith flourish.”

Schack affirmed that the recent announcement “has no impact on American Heritage Girls troops” in the archdiocese.

American Heritage Girls, which has been endorsed by Catholic dioceses across the country, features a National Catholic Committee headed by Bishop James Conley of the Diocese of Lincoln, Nebraska.

The group forms “girls of integrity through Catholic Faith Awards, troop life, service, outdoor adventure, and leadership,” the group stated.

“American Heritage Girls is grateful for over 30 years of ministry rooted in a Christ-centered foundation, deeply aligned with the Catholic Church,” it added.

Religious Liberty Commission hears from teachers, coaches, school leaders

unitedyam September 29, 2025

President Trump’s Religious Liberty Commission meets on Sept. 29, 2025, in Washington, D.C. / Credit: Tessa Gervasini/CNA

Washington, D.C., Sep 29, 2025 / 19:13 pm (CNA).

Teachers, coaches, and other public and private school leaders said their religious liberty was threatened in American schools at a hearing conducted by President Donald Trump’s Religious Liberty Commission on Sept. 29.

Speakers said there must be a fight for schools to bring back the “truth” to protect students and religious liberty. Joe Kennedy, a high school football coach; Monica Gill, a high school teacher; Marisol Arroyo-Castro, a seventh grade teacher; and Keisha Russell, a lawyer for First Liberty Institute, addressed the commission led by Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick.

“There has to be a call to action,” commission member Dr. Phil McGraw said. “The most common way to lose power is to think you don’t have it to begin with. We do have power, and we need to rally with that power.”

Teachers and coaches describe experiences

Kennedy said he was suspended — and later fired — from his position as a football coach at Bremerton High School in Washington for praying a brief and quiet prayer after football games.

“After the game, I took a knee to say thanks,” Kennedy explained. “That’s all. If that could be turned into a national controversy, it says more about the confusion in our country than the conduct of the person performing it.”

Kennedy told the commission the law is “cloudy and muddy” and they “have the power to clarify it.” Kennedy also said some lawyers “need to be held accountable” for actions taken in religious liberty cases.

Kennedy said: “I don’t know a lot about law and liberty, but I know that you’re supposed to advise people on the truth and the facts, and they’re not. They have an agenda, and their agenda is well set and in place and is working very well, keeping prayer out of the public square. They’re still doing it. That needs to be exposed.”

“Being a teacher has been one of the greatest blessings of my life,” Gill said to the committee. “God really gave my heart a mission … to show all of my students every day that they are loved. No matter what they’re going through, no matter what their grades are, no matter what their status is with their peers, I love them.”

“But in the summer of 2021 … Loudoun County Public Schools adopted a policy that forced teachers to deny the foundational truth of what it means to be human, created as male and female,” Gill said.

“This policy forced teachers to affirm all transgender students,” Gill said. “My employer gave teachers a choice: deny truth or risk everything … I knew that I could not stand in front of my Father in heaven one day and say: ‘My pension plan was more important than your truth.’ I also knew that if I say that I love my students, the only right choice would be to stand in love and truth for them.”

To combat the policy, Gill joined a lawsuit by Alliance Defending Freedom after a fellow Virginia teacher was fired for speaking out against the same policy. The lawsuit “resulted in victory for all teachers to freely speak truth and love when Loudoun County finally agreed not to require teachers to use pronouns in accordance with the student’s sex,” Gill said.

Arroyo-Castro testified that she was punished for displaying a cross in her private workspace in her seventh grade classroom in a New Britain School District school in Connecticut.

“I share this with you to help you understand why the crucifix is so significant to me and why I will never hide it from anyone’s view,” Arroyo-Castro said. “The vice principal told me that the crucifix was of a religious nature, so against the Constitution of the United States, and that it had to be taken down by the end of the day.”

If she did not take it down it would be considered “insubordination and could lead to termination,” Arroyo-Castro said. She asked if she could have time to pray on it, and was told she could, but “it wouldn’t change anything.”

“I was later called to a meeting with the district chief of staff, the principal, the vice principal, [and a] union representative. The chief of staff suggested that I put the crucifix in a drawer. I knew I couldn’t do that since my grandmother has instilled in me the meaning of the crucifix and how it should be treated with respect. But the chief of staff said that the Constitution says that I had to take it down,” Arroyo-Castro said.

After she refused to remove it, Arroyo-Castro was released from school with an unpaid suspension. She was offered legal defense by lawyers at First Liberty, which sued the school for violating the Constitution. While the lawsuit is ongoing she works in the administrative building “far from the students.”

Arroyo-Castro said: “Every day, I wonder how they’re doing.”

“Please do what you can to educate the districts in American schools about the true meaning of the establishment clause and the free exercise clause,” Arroyo-Castro advised the commission members. “How can we do our jobs well when many education leaders today don’t understand the Constitution themselves? We must understand as Americans that freedom of religion is a right that benefits all Americans.”

Suggestions from faith leaders

Leaders at Jewish, Catholic, and Christian schools also recounted religious freedom issues facing faith-based schools across the nation and what the country can do.

The leaders highlighted the need to protect the financial aid faith-based institutions receive and stop any threats of losing money if certain values are not enforced. Todd J. Williams, provost at Cairn University, said: “Schools will begin to cave because they’re worried about the millions of dollars that will go out the door.”

Father Robert Sirico, a priest at Sacred Heart Catholic School in Grand Rapids, Michigan, said he was recently affected by a decision by the Michigan Supreme Court that redefined sex to include sexual orientation and gender identity.

“While presented as a matter of fairness, this reinterpretation proposes grave dangers, grave risks for all religious institutions, even those like Sacred Heart that receive absolutely no public support,” he said.

Sacred Heart has filed a lawsuit to combat the issue, but Sirico said what needs to be done “exceeds the competency of [the] commission and the competency of this administration.”

“We have to think of this in existential terms, and we have to come at this project with the understanding that this is going to take years to transform. This is why religious people can transform the world: We believe in something that’s greater than our politics. We can reenvision.”

Mothers urge lawmakers to ban assault weapons after Minneapolis Catholic school shooting

unitedyam September 22, 2025

Police gather at Annunciation Catholic School in Minneapolis on Aug. 27, 2025, following a mass shooting that killed two children and injured 17 others, 14 of them children. / Credit: Chad Davis, CC BY 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons

CNA Staff, Sep 22, 2025 / 17:17 pm (CNA).

At a town hall meeting in Plymouth, Minnesota, over the weekend, three mothers whose children survived the school shooting at Annunciation Catholic Church in August advocated for stricter gun laws.

Two children were killed and 21 people were injured after Robin Westman, 23, a man who identified as a woman, shot through the stained-glass windows of the church during a school Mass on Aug. 27.

Fletcher Merkel, 8, and Harper Moyski, 10, were killed in the attack.

Carla Maldonado, who has two children at Annunciation Catholic School, said “taking action” by tightening gun laws would honor the deaths of the two children and “all lives taken by gun violence.”

“We cannot accept a world where civilians have access to weapons designed for battlefields,” she said, referring to assault weapons and calling for their prohibition.

Another mother, Malia Kimbrell, who also supports an assault weapons ban, asked: “If the next mass shooting happens at your child’s school, what type of weapon are you comfortable with the shooter being armed with?”

Kimbrell, whose daughter Vivian, 9, is recovering after she was shot multiple times, advocated for “more mental health resources and safer gun storage and better background checks and detecting potential threats online and improved security measures.”

Stephanie Moscetti said her son “was an honorary pallbearer at his friend’s [Merkel’s] funeral; how is this our reality?”

“Our kids deserve safe schools, they deserve safe childhoods where they can play and learn,” she said.

Rep. Kelly Morrison, a Democrat who represents Minnesota’s 3rd Congressional District, organized the town hall meeting, which focused on the prevention of gun violence.

Several of the mothers at the town hall also testified last week before a working group of state lawmakers who deliberated over proposed reforms dealing with gun violence.

At the hearing, Rob Doar, senior vice president of the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, asked lawmakers to strengthen the law surrounding mental health resources access, pointing out that none of the proposals put forward would have prevented the shooting because Westman legally purchased the weapons.

Westman used three firearms during the August attack: a rifle, a shotgun, and a pistol, all of which were purchased legally under existing state law. The rifle was likely an AR-15-style semiautomatic rifle, which is considered an assault weapon.

Laws limiting those with mental health disorders from gun possession

Though Westman struggled with his gender identity, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) removed “gender identity disorder” from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) and replaced it with “gender dysphoria” in the revised version, known as the DSM-5, published in 2013.

This change marked a significant shift in how struggles with a person’s sexual identity are classified, with health care professionals no longer calling it a mental illness.

The new classification of gender dysphoria, though it is still in the APA’s manual of mental disorders, addresses the symptoms, or the distress, associated with gender incongruence and not the incongruence itself.

Minnesota, along with 29 other states, bars people with mental health issues who have been involuntarily committed or found to be a danger to self or others from possessing a gun.

This law did not come into play in the August shooting, however.

Gov. Tim Walz in early September called for a special session, which has yet to take place, that will focus on gun safety. He proposed banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazine clips as well as more safety regulations concerning storage and a stronger red flag law.

Minnesota’s current red flag law allows family or local and state officials to ask for an extreme risk protection order, or ERPO, which allows them to petition the court to have an at-risk person’s guns removed or to temporarily prohibit that person from buying a gun.

“We passed a red flag law. It was passed in 2023 and it was supposed to deal with a situation like this,” Minnesota House Republican leader Harry Niska said in early September after Walz proposed the special session. “So I hope everyone is asking serious questions about why — why did this incident not trigger either a background check flag or a red flag?”

Walz will need the support of Republican lawmakers in the special session, and they have different proposals. They want to make private school security eligible for state funding, something the Minnesota Catholic Conference, the public policy arm of Minnesota’s six Catholic dioceses, has asked for multiple times.

Republicans also want to allow doctors more discretion concerning transgender medical procedures, more funds for mental health facilities, and harsher penalties for certain gun crimes.

Ten states ban assault weapons, but the proposal in Minnesota failed to come up for a vote in 2023. Just over half of rural residents opposed an assault weapons ban in a 2022 MinnPost poll, while 69% of urban dwellers supported it. Overall, the poll found that nearly 54% supported it.

Minnesota already has one of the nation’s stronger gun regulation frameworks, according to Everytown Research, which ranks the state 14th in the country for gun safety policies.

The state requires universal background checks for all firearm sales, including private transfers, and domestic violence protections prohibit access for those under restraining orders or with misdemeanor convictions, among many other regulations.

Toledo bishop’s letter on gender ideology ‘timely’ and ‘loving,’ Mary Rice Hasson says

unitedyam September 18, 2025

Ethics and Public Policy Center scholar Mary Rice Hasson praised the Bishop of Toledo's recent pastoral letter, titled "The Body Reveals the Person: A Catholic Response to the Challenges of Gender Ideology." / Credit: "EWTN News Nightly"/Screenshot

Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Sep 18, 2025 / 15:00 pm (CNA).

Toledo, Ohio, Bishop Daniel Thomas’ recently released pastoral letter offering guidance on sex and gender identity issues received praise from the head of the Ethics and Public Policy Center’s (EPPC) Person and Identity Project, Mary Rice Hasson.

“[Thomas] really hones in so beautifully in this document on the truth that we are body and soul, and that our bodies reveal something wonderful about who we are,” Rice told “EWTN News Nightly” anchor Veronica Dudo on Sept. 17. “And so, rejecting the body, which is really what’s going on in the transgender issue, it’s sex rejection, rejection of yourself, is really turning back on yourself and hating and destroying something that is really, really good.”

Thomas’ letter, “The Body Reveals the Person: A Catholic Response to the Challenges of Gender Ideology,” is the longest statement by a U.S. bishop dealing exclusively with gender ideology.

Drawing on Scripture, theology, philosophy, and social sciences, the letter presents Church teaching in a form the bishop said he hopes is “readable, digestible, accessible, and charitable.”“I think it’s tremendously important that we have a bishop speaking out and giving such timely, but really comprehensive, loving, and hopeful guidance,” Rice said, noting the letter comes in the wake of Charlie Kirk’s assassination.

Kirk was shot while answering a question about transgenderism and gun violence. Tyler Robinson, the man charged with murdering Kirk, has been romantically linked to his transgender roommate, Lance Twiggs, a biological male.

Kirk had said he supported an effort to ban transgender people from owning firearms in light of the shooting at Annunciation Catholic Church in Minnesota last month, which was also carried out by a man who identified as transgender.

EPPC scholar calls on more bishops to emulate Thomas

While some dioceses have offered “terrific responses” to the transgender issue, Rice acknowledged, “there are some dioceses where there’s nothing, there’s not even a statement about how people should understand this issue [and] what the Church’s teaching is.”

“I encourage bishops, if they have not written and spoken to this issue to please do that,” she continued. “People want to hear that. And that’s what I hear from people when I travel all over the U.S. talking about this issue.”

Rice pointed out that while social media can be used well to form connections with other people, “it really has become a channel of evil in many respects,” especially regarding sexual orientation and gender identity issues.

“Our youth are particularly vulnerable because they’re young,” she said. “They don’t have the prudence, the discretion, to be able to judge what’s the truth of what’s coming at them. They’re very subject to manipulation and peer pressure.”

Rice further encouraged parents to be vigilant in monitoring social media usage among their children.

“We have to speak the truth, and we have to be really clear that this is evil,” Rice said of transgenderism. “There are wonderful holistic ways to deal with difficult feelings,” she said, adding: “God loves everyone so much, and he wants something better than what is on offer right now from the culture on this issue.”

unitedyam February 12, 2025

Actor Chiranjeevi’s remarks about preferring a grandson to carry forward his family legacy have sparked outrage for promoting gender bias and son preference. Political figures and activists have condemned his comments as sexist and reflective of patriarchal beliefs, urging him to withdraw his statement and apologize for reinforcing harmful son preference cultures.